ANY of them!
Strobel, McDowell, Yancey - take your pick. They are masters of obfuscation and avoiding the real question. They play to the converted by offering up weak arguments that sound good on the surface but fall apart under intense scutiny.
Tell me - who is your favorite Christian apologist?
To be honest, I haven’t read McDowell or Yancey. I did read parts of a Strobel book once. It wasn’t on apologetics, though.
My favorite Christian apologist is Glenn Miller. He, of course, runs http://www.christian-thinktank.com
It doesn’t matter what apologists I have read.The fact remains that all of the following views have been supported by Biblical interpretation:
Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-slavery, abolitionism, racism, tolerance, pro-capital punishment, anti-capital punishment, etc.
You name the worldview or position, no matter how contradictory to your own take on things and I can find the biblical support for it.
Ya know what, Nomadic_One? I’m not Polycarp, and I cannot speak with his mouth.
But I know him fairly well. And badchad’s cowardly and unnecessary sniping to the contrary, he is not a hypocrite. Honestly, I say them’s fightin words, but I’m not certain you meant it in as negative way as it came across.
See, here’s the deal: he sees the Bible as the word of God. But he realizes that the Christ was the Word of God.
Or another way, he worships the Christ as his savior, not a book.
He does not preach one thing and say another. That’s hypocrisy. And he does not lie.
(Now, this gets back to goboy’s point. I know Poly is not a hypocrite and I know he is not a liar because I know him. I assume you are not a liar, because you’ve given me no reason to think you are, but I am much more likely to listen politely to his witnessing than a stranger’s.)
I think that it does matter. You will encounter good apologetics and bad apologetics. I’m not sure how this ties into Biblical interpretation, though.
But can you give us a definition of “Good Apologetics” that doesn’t boil down to “Someone who tells me what I want to hear.”?
How can Glenn Miller run a think tank? He’s dead.
:dubious:
lol people let the man defend himself im sure hes perfectly capable of doing so. I was just looking for his interpretation on what he ment. thank you and God bless.
Im sorry jr8 i meant to say photopat and andros for those two quotes im sorry for misquoting you.
You know, if someone were to come on this board and say that unless someone was absolutely perfect in every way, he or she was totally and indefensibly evil, I think people of all beliefs and political persuasions would unite in calling that idea ridiculous.
What I said, nomadic one, was in no way hypocritical. I love the Bible, I read it fairly regularly, I study it as I have time. I rely on it for most of the information about my Lord. But I do not think it is totally without error, and God as known in Christ, not the Bible, is what my faith is founded on.
That concept doesn’t seem that hard to grasp. But I seem to have a truly terrible time bringing it across.
Oh, and badchad? I’m a Christian humanist – I’ve never denied that; I glory in it. Because that’s what Jesus told us to do. It’s only the Neo-Pharisees (sorry, Chaim!) who would make Him over into an agent for their bigotry who think that “humanism” is something evil.
thank you for clearing some of that up polycarp.
Like the difference between a biography about a particular person and the actual, living person himself? 
Or, to add another interpretation to the pile: there are two types of people who have studied the teachings of Christ in depth. The first kind you know because they can recite them verbatim from memory. The second kind never have to mention them at all.
Yep.
"You mean you don’t think that Snorri wrote totally without error? Why, you’re no better than, than, than a Christian! :eek: "
How about “a work that attempts to utilize all relevant knowledge and theory regarding the topic under discussion to arrive at a defensible explanation of why a given doctrine is accepted”?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by andros *
Note the name on the left. Hint: It’s Gobear, not Goboy.
My basic point is that witnessing, like any other persuasion to change one’s life, is not going to be accomplished by some stranger telling me what’s wrong with my life and what I need when he doesn’t even know me. Witnessing is not a one size fits all proposition; you need to get to know people, to make it personal.
I don’t know Nomadic_One, so I have no reason to listen when he says he knows I need to convert to his religionPolycarp has put the time in, he’s gotten to know me, and he’s shown himself to be a sharp debater and a good man.
Dammit, sorry. Slip of the keyboard. No offense meant, of course.
The concept of the trinity has been under review for me in the past year. The three in one idea has been around for two thousand years. But I believe that concept to be incomplete particularly for the future if we are to accept the following words
So where we once may have had scriptural evidence suggesting that three entities qualify as God, Paul says that God will be all in all. I realize that could be hard to imagine, but I believe that we will all be God in time.
To further clarify my “understanding” lets look at the following passage
I think that God somehow disassociated himself when He created the universe in order to achieve something better in the future when he reconciles us all back. Much of your scriptural presentations suggest how difficult it is to pin down God as a specific “form”.
It isn’t my intention to convert anyone to this idea, but it does excite me and reinforces my belief that all of us are destined for “salvation” .
Now that I’ve addressed the OP , I’ll address Joe Random
Why can’t Heli be Joseph’s mother? Or why can’t Heli be Jacob’s second name?
Yes
Do you think its possible that the original translation pertains to animals that like to chew their food a lot.
But they do! They also have two extra appendages that can be classified as arms for grasping.
My point in rebuttal to Joe Random is not to refute the premise that there are some factual errors in the bible, but rather to minimize their significance. The words of the scribes were never intended to be scientific literature.
:rolleyes: Well, which is it? NO factual errors, or many of “little signifcance?” If you want bigger significant errors, check the SAB for many: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. Complete KJV 1611 for ya!
The words weren’t Science lit, but the inspired word of God ought to be fairly factual.
Pi is not 3.
Well in that case Ilsa, pi is not 3.1. Or for that matter 3.14. Or 3.142. Or 3.1416. Shall I continue? And how do you describe 3.14 in the language of the time of original writing and prior to the decimal system?
welcome to the board 